Moral Reason, Risk, and Comparative Inquiry: A Response to Francisca Cho
In her critique of ethical naturalism and ethical formalism as starting points for methods in comparative religious ethics, Francisca Cho correctly identifies formalism and naturalism as modern Western versions of moral rationality, and she shows us important commonalities that the debate between fo...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Wiley-Blackwell
1998
|
| In: |
Journal of religious ethics
Year: 1998, Volume: 26, Issue: 1, Pages: 167-174 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
| Summary: | In her critique of ethical naturalism and ethical formalism as starting points for methods in comparative religious ethics, Francisca Cho correctly identifies formalism and naturalism as modern Western versions of moral rationality, and she shows us important commonalities that the debate between formalism and naturalism may obscure. Her proposal to treat the other as a "philosophical subject" does not, however, escape the limitations of naturalism and formalism. The antifoundationalist rejection of theory and generalization in favor of the particulars of moral experience is yet another version of modern Western moral rationality, and it, too, is one of the models of moral rationality with which we begin our comparative work. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1467-9795 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of religious ethics
|